from the charts it seems AMD is still behind clock for clock... YES, its 3GHz < 200USD where intel costs a lot more for a quad there, compared to say... intels 9300 at its current 350-$400 pricing.
However, if you compare it to an overclocked intel (anything with a multi above 8.0) then intel is going to own it.
AMD has made the right choice with the low prices, i just hope these things OC somewhat decently (especially the unlocked multi ones)

Intels 65nm are faster clock vs clock, and the 45's only widen the lead... so MHz and price are what matters.

i have and first you push the multi then you push the bus speeds. thats how it works cause your going to run out of multis pretty quick. you need to push that before you can even attempt to say you have the chip maxed out. hence why the 5000BE WRs are not set @ 200*whatever but 258*17 wow he pushed both? why would you leave one method of oc'ing completely untouched :shadedshu

what if the guy had one day to do the review - i used to review so maybe its obvious to me. If you have multis and FSB, yes FSB will have higher performance... but you will find the max area of the CPU from multis alone.

what if the guy had one day to do the review - i used to review so maybe its obvious to me. If you have multis and FSB, yes FSB will have higher performance... but you will find the max area of the CPU from multis alone.

NO a q6600 is 95W (EDIT), but it uses less power than a similarly clocked phenom. Assuming that this phenom at 65W is just a clocked down version of the same thing... then this is really a pretty bad marketing scam.

How else should they market this? It's a low power quad core system for maybe a low power HTPC, or desktop. They can claim this all they want, because technically that Xeon isn't a desktop processor, and it isn't monolithic like the Phenom die, it's 2xC2D. I like the option to buy a cheap quad, and bump it up to speed, or, keep it at stock and undervolt it, probably get it down below 50W load at the stock 1.8ghz. It's not a "marketing scam" it's positive spin, and they're technically correct in their claims.

Firstly, 4 cores is 4 cores... you can count them 1,2,3,4! all there.. hence "quad core." No not a "monolithic" quad core, but the 'monolithic' ones are much slower and less effective performance/watt ATM, so personally i dont see the benefit of having a "true" quad core (show me one positive).

Be that as it may, claiming that you "Extend(ed) Energy-Efficient Processing Leadership with World’s First 65-Watt Quad-Core Desktop Processor" is misleading.

Same as Intel going "WE HAVE BROKEN PROCESSOR SPEED RECORD WITH THE FASTEST FREQUENCY PROCESSOR, THE 3.6GHz POOPIUM 4!!!" well, yes... but no.

Notice how Intel never said anything about performance/HZ and now AMD never said anything about performance/watt. That's why I thought tkpenalty's first post was dead on.

You can get one, im not knocking the product... its good to find new niches in the same market, thats awesome. But putting so much spin on the product, claiming that it took some sort of leadership, and that its somehow earth-shattering quad core is a bit of smoke and mirrors. Its just bad form because theyre trying to make more money through misdirection.

If you dont think so, then i can sell you "THE FASTEST BICYCLE IN THE WORLD, FASTER THAN ALL OTHER BICYCLES!!!" for $500.

Firstly, 4 cores is 4 cores... you can count them 1,2,3,4! all there.. hence "quad core." No not a "monolithic" quad core, but the 'monolithic' ones are much slower and less effective performance/watt ATM, so personally i dont see the benefit of having a "true" quad core (show me one positive).

You can get one, im not knocking the product... its good to find new niches in the same market, thats awesome. But putting so much spin on the product, claiming that it took some sort of leadership, and that its somehow earth-shattering quad core is a bit of smoke and mirrors. Its just bad form because theyre trying to make more money through misdirection.

If you dont think so, then i can sell you "THE FASTEST BICYCLE IN THE WORLD, FASTER THAN ALL OTHER BICYCLES!!!" for $500.

Monolithic doesn't have to mean slower, just because K10 isn't a huge leap doesn't mean 4 cores on 1 die is inherently slower. But, like I said, they're not going to NOT put positive spin on it. They'll use technicalities like that. You and I and the rest of the tech forum users know 4 cores makes a quad core, but AMD will use there monolithic design as a marketing advantage, and I'm sick of people getting upset when they do. Every company in the history of business will speak positively about their products. They'll say anything and everything that walks the line between truth and lies just to get sales. It's not misdirection, it's slightly misleading, because it isn't the first quad core processor to hit below 65W, but it is the first available for the desktop to be rated 65W. I'm not defending their spin, I'm accepting it and moving on. But people still dwell on it as if it never happens!